In this case, the parties crafted
a Settlement Agreement that resolved the dispute over the 2009 assessment of
two parcels of land owned by the Tranciks. Settlement agreements are governed
by the general principles of contract law. Ind.
State Highway Comm’n. v. Curtis, 704 N.E.2d 1015, 1018 (Ind. 1998). If
the terms are unambiguous and the intent of the parties is discernible from the
written contract, the court is to give effect to the terms of the contract. Id.
“Terms are ambiguous if a
reasonable person would find them subject to more than one interpretation, but
are not ambiguous merely because the parties disagree concerning their proper interpretation.”
Fackler v. Powell, 891 N.E.2d 1091, 1096 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). When the contract
terms are clear and unambiguous, the terms are conclusive and a court will not
construe the contract or look to extrinsic evidence. Id.
The terms of the Settlement
Agreements are clear and unambiguous. As such, they should be given their plain
and ordinary meaning. It is clear from the Agreements that the parties intended
to settle this matter in the proceeding before the Assessor.
Specifically, the evidence
presented by the Assessor shows that the Settlement Agreements both reference
the subject parcels, and as shown above, the basis for the Tranciks’ appeal to
the Assessor, and the Assessor’s response which caused the Assessor to reduce
the assessment for each parcel. The Agreements also state that “[t]he
Petitioner is in agreement with this value.” (See Motion to Dismiss, Ex.
C, D).
Further, the evidence presented
by the Assessor shows that the Settlement Agreements were signed by both
parties at an informal hearing. This reflects the intent to settle this matter.
Moreover, the Settlement
Agreements informed the parties if the “disagreement in the value of the
property cannot be resolved at this conference, the appeal will be determined
by the County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals.” See Motion to
Dismiss, Exs. C, D. The Tranciks did not file an appeal to the PTABOA, and this
matter was not determined by the PTABOA, other than a general acceptance by the
PTABOA of the terms of the Agreements.
The Tranciks disagree that the
Settlement Agreements were meant to settle this matter or be considered final.
However, they failed to introduce any evidence that would raise a genuine issue
of fact as to whether, based on the Agreements, the parties intended to settle
this matter.
The evidence they introduced
included a sales disclosure form for two nearby properties, a Uniform
Residential Appraisal Report for parcel 16-10-20-00-02-005.000, and a Form 133 Petition
for Correction of an Error filed with the Assessor on February 25, 2010 (See
Motion to Stop Dismissal, Exs. A-D). However, this evidence does nothing to
cast doubt on the meaning of the Agreements, which is that the Agreements were
meant to settle the valuation dispute at the reduced amount set forth by the
Tranciks.
The terms of the Agreements,
which reduced the assessment for both parcels, are only subject to one
interpretation. The terms are not ambiguous simply because the Tranciks allege the
Settlement Agreements were not intended to settle the matter. Their position is
simply not supported by the terms of the Agreements. Pursuant to the Settlement
Agreements, the assessed value for 2009 for each parcel was reduced by the
Assessor to the value the Tranciks contended it should be (See Motion to
Dismiss, Exs. C, D). The Tranciks failed to present evidence that set forth a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether the parties intended to settle
this matter. To show a genuine issue of material fact, they needed to show the
terms of the Settlement Agreements were ambiguous necessitating extrinsic
facts. This, they did not do. The Agreements were not ambiguous, and were meant
to settle this matter.
As such, Assessor’s motion for
summary judgment is granted. The Tranciks’ Form 131 appeals are dismissed.
